KEVIN McKenna misses the point ("There has never been a better time to call a new referendum", The Herald, May 19). He writes: “Remarkably, support for Yes has consistently held up during a period when it might have been eroded by disillusion”. Surely a more pertinent comment would revolve around why support for independence has not significantly increased. We have a divided and increasingly right-wing Tory Party, struggling with the chaos that is Brexit, and an out-of-touch Labour Party, with its simmering civil war just under the surface, representing the status quo position. In these (worldwide) uncertain and unpredictable times, Scots are not prepared to vote for more uncertainty.

Eventually Brexit, one way or the other, will be resolved and the Labour Party, or new breakaway party, will eventually find its sense of direction and offer left-of-centre voters a genuine home once again. I would have thought, at that point, support for a Yes position is likely to decline.

Jim White,

44 Ravenswood Drive, Glasgow.

TWO articles in Saturday's Herald highlight the SNP's dilemma. Tom Gordon asks “Will the SNP's Growth Commission be worth the wait?”, while Alex Salmond avers that “Sturgeon will not underestimate BBC bias in next indyref”. But if the SNP had made a sound economic case in 2014 there would be no need for the new Growth Commission. The fundamentals would be sound, requiring perhaps only some tweaking, ready for the next time. The very existence of the Growth Commission is an admission that the SNP, and Mr Salmond, got it wrong the last time.

In which case, what did Mr Salmond expect the BBC to do? Should it have pretended that questions of the currency, a central bank, the over-dependence on a single volatile commodity and the extensive financial transfers from the UK to Scotland didn't exist or were of no importance? Should the potentially negative outcomes of Mr Salmond's economic adventurism be passed without comment? Should the BBC have refused to question SNP politicians as firmly as they did others?

I have no idea what the Growth Commission Report will say. No doubt it will be impressively packaged and spun but, as the basic facts of economics don't change, it is unlikely that it will contain any new or exciting revelations to aid the SNP in its quest for economic credibility.

Meanwhile the SNP tries to make political capital out of the negative impact that Brexit will have on the economy. But the SNP's own statistics show that Scottish independence would be four times as damaging as Brexit to our small economy. I doubt if that fact will be emphasised in the Growth Commission Report. If it is, does Mr Salmond think that the BBC should report on it, or question politicians on its implications?

Alex Gallagher,

Labour Councillor North Coast and Cumbraes,

North Ayrshire Council,

12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.

ALEX Salmond has threatened a political comeback to help First Minster Nicola Sturgeon with her independence referendum campaign.

Ms Sturgeon must see this a poisoned chalice from an old friend who was forced to fall on his sword as SNP leader when he got the timing all wrong at the 2014 referendum.

It is somewhat unfair of Mr Salmond to muddy the SNP leadership waters when he had his chance in 2014 but blew it.

Dennis Forbes Grattan,

3 Mugiemoss Road,

Bucksburn, Aberdeen.

KEVIN McKenna makes a beguiling case for calling a second independence referendum in short order. It is difficult to argue with the factors he cites, from the secrecy imposed on the McCrone Report (which actually underestimated the value of North Sea oil to Scotland), through our experience of the long night of the Thatcher governments, to the inability (and unwillingness?) of successive British governments to control the excesses of the financial services industry. And of course, finally, the cherry on the cake, Brexit, a policy voters in Scotland rejected, characterised by Mr McKenna as “a means of furthering [a right-wing cabal’s] party political ambitions” by engendering “fear and resentment of migrants and a callous indifference to the fate of refugees”, and consequently the position of EU nationals living amongst us in Scotland will be compromised after the UK leaves the EU.

In comparison to 2014, support for independence is considerably higher than before the start of the first campaign, therefore, Mr McKenna argues, “it’s now or never for Nicola Sturgeon to move on a second referendum on independence”.

However, there are two issues which appear to have gone unconsidered.

First, no matter how powerful the case against the UK might be, we need a no less powerful case for an independent Scotland. Last time this fell short, albeit only just. There is a groundswell of opinion, which Mr McKenna gives voice to, for a referendum as soon as possible, but surely the case for independence must be revisited beforehand, and those aspects on which it proved insufficiently convincing – particularly for the 55 per cent who voted No – must be revised. A convincing narrative to persuade enough to come over is essential so that the second referendum does not meet the same fate as the first. The impending publication of Andrew Wilson’s Growth Commission is promising, but other issues such as pensions still await resolution.

Secondly, does Mr McKenna imagine that if the First Minister seeks another Section 30 order any time soon, that Theresa May will meekly accede? Forgive me, but I don’t believe she will. Therefore, would it not be warranted to look for an alternative way forward, if Westminster has obstructed another referendum? In a previous letter I suggested that in this event the First Minister would be justified at the next Westminster election to include a “manifesto commitment to a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) if [the SNP] secure a majority of Scottish seats (at least 30 at the present time)”. Peter Russell in a reply claimed this “advocated “taking people's votes away”, when of course it would do no such thing. The commitment would be in the manifesto and voters could vote for it (or not) as they chose. This proposal would mean no more than employing an alternative but well established and historically traditional system of voting, other than a referendum, which would have been blocked off by Westminster. Or do we all, as the Conservatives at Holyrood have done, meekly accede to Westminster’s sovereignty?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.